Lufty A346 gets a bruising - 18th March 2014

Jack1985 · 27-03-2014 4:55pm #1

Lufthansa A340-600, D-AIHR, performing flight LH714 from Munich (EDDM/MUC) to Tokyo Narita (RJAA/NRT), landed on Narita's Runway 16R at 11:22L (02:22Z) in gusting conditions but touched down hard, the flight rolled out and taxied to the apron without further incident.

Subsequently the return LH715 was cancelled, and the aircraft has not been able to depart NRT since the incident due to overstress damage to the gear requiring repairs.

METARs around 11:22L - 18/03/14:
RJAA 180205Z 22026G39KT 4500 BLDU FEW030 SCT050 BKN160 18/08 Q1011 RMK 2CU030 4SC050 6AC160 A2987
RJAA 180230Z 22021G36KT 190V250 5000 BLDU FEW035 BKN150 18/08 Q1010 WS R16R TEMPO 22030G50KT 3000 BLDU RMK 2CU035 6AC150 A2985

How about this for a landing :eek:, very challenging!

Growler!!! · 27-03-2014 5:07pm

Ouch, a classic case of " what the wind giveth, the wind also taketh away"

Gust died away just prior to touch down, less wind, less lift :-)

Jack1985 · 27-03-2014 5:40pm

" what the wind giveth, the wind also taketh away"

Never heard that phrase before, nice!

kub · 27-03-2014 6:03pm

Its Youtube great, the pilots boss back in the Motherland can actually witness the incident.

Suasdaguna1 · 27-03-2014 6:13pm

Flared too-high, then stuffed the nose down imho.......not helped by a big gust. That landing was not pretty. Naritta is notorious for gusty winds.

I wouldn't be surprised if we hear its an economic write off, such is the low residuals of 340-600s.

Hope no one was hurt.

Jack1985 · 27-03-2014 6:41pm

As an update to this, the landing produced a vertical acceleration of +2.8G :eek: which is the second hardest recorded for the A346 with the Iberia, Quito overrun in 2007 registering +3.09G.

Examinations underway and the right landing gear has to be replaced, the whole airframe including particularly the wings and fuel tanks being scrutinised for cracks. Aircraft to be grounded for ''several weeks''.

Flared too-high, then stuffed the nose down imho

Wouldn't think the crew will be getting scrutinised for this, you can see the direct correlation following the gust with the hard touch-down. Clear attempt made to pull up also as the elevator shows.

Suasdaguna1 · 27-03-2014 7:17pm

Good point jack.....id say they had that bloody auto thrust engaged which imho is a curse in sporty weather. .......the 2nd hardest landing?? Wow.....odds are shortening re an economic write off?? What you think.

keith16 · 27-03-2014 7:26pm

Suasdaguna1 wrote: »

Good point jack.....id say they had that bloody auto thrust engaged which imho is a curse in sporty weather. .......the 2nd hardest landing?? Wow.....odds are shortening re an economic write off?? What you think.

How old would the aircraft be?

Jack1985 · 27-03-2014 7:46pm

Good point jack.....id say they had that bloody auto thrust engaged which imho is a curse in sporty weather. .......the 2nd hardest landing?? Wow.....odds are shortening re an economic write off?? What you think.

True heard it plenty of times that the A/THR feature in the Airbus can be a b*tch in crosswinds or gusts, but It's perfect in other conditions on the other hand and it leaves you control focused, knowing your speed trend is ok from the PFD.

I would hope not a W/O to be honest, it would be sad to see an aircraft go that young but considering the A340's are a bit of a disaster re: re-sale, it wouldn't surprise me at the same time, we should know in a few weeks though!

How old would the aircraft be?

Just over 7 years.

Nixer Jim · 28-03-2014 3:04am

How come this type has such poor re sale value lads?

cuterob · 28-03-2014 4:06am

Nixer Jim wrote: »

How come this type has such poor re sale value lads?

burns more fuel than the newer a350 and 787

Patrickheg · 28-03-2014 6:15am

cuterob wrote: »

burns more fuel than the newer a350 and 787

It's much much worse than that as those planes are next generation only coming on line now / last yr or two and aren't the a340s main rival / problem.

A 777 would be more of a rival to the a340 in terms of passenger numbers / flight distance and kicks the ass of the a340 due to having 2 less engines, hence why the a340 had a very short production span.

Nixer Jim · 28-03-2014 7:43am

Patrickheg wrote: »

It's much much worse than that as those planes are next generation only coming on line now / last yr or two and aren't the a340s main rival / problem.

A 777 would be more of a rival to the a340 in terms of passenger numbers / flight distance and kicks the ass of the a340 due to having 2 less engines, hence why the a340 had a very short production span.

Which brings me to ny next amateur question. How come the more modern aircraft only need two engines instead of four. I thought aircraft travelling a certain distance or carry high volumes of passengers had to have four rather than two engines.

Signed

Totally ignorant to these things :-)

Suasdaguna1 · 28-03-2014 8:21am

Nixer JiM, the answer is beancounters and reliabilty. Both are the drivers that have made twins the transport of choice.

L1011 · 28-03-2014 9:31am

Nixer Jim wrote: »

I thought aircraft travelling a certain distance or carry high volumes of passengers had to have four rather than two engines.

They do, but that distance is absolutely huge. ETOPS - which used to stand for Extended Twin Operations but I think has been redefined - allows aircraft and airlines that have proven themselves in terms of engine reliability to fly longer and longer distances over water / away from diversionary airports.

Specific models of 777 ER/LR are allowed go 330 minutes and the A350 is intended to have 350 minutes which I believe actually allows any routing possible within range of the plane.

The only reason you'd really need four engines now is for physical lift due to the size of the plane, and that's becoming even less important now - the 777-9X is realisitcally going to replace the 747s role for many airlines and it'll be a twin.

donvito99 · 28-03-2014 4:47pm

I physically winced watching that, and again thinking of the very visible bend that fuelage underwent...

keroseneboy · 31-03-2014 1:42am

Patrickheg wrote: »

It's much much worse than that as those planes are next generation only coming on line now / last yr or two and aren't the a340s main rival / problem.

A 777 would be more of a rival to the a340 in terms of passenger numbers / flight distance and kicks the ass of the a340 due to having 2 less engines, hence why the a340 had a very short production span.

The FAA granted the 777 Extended Time Over Water Opetations(ETOPS) certification permitting the big twin to operate 240 Minutes distance from atlernate landing fields after performing stringent testing involving 1,000 flights of an early 777-200 proving it's reliability. The A340 comes from an era prior to this. I seem to remember that the engines on the A340 in question are identical to those on the Aer Lingus A320-214(i.e. CFM56-5B's). A modern Boeing 777-300ER has much more efficient GE90-110 engines.

Razor44 · 31-03-2014 11:58am

I seem to remember that the engines on the A340 in question are identical to those on the Aer Lingus A320-214(i.e. CFM56-5B's). A modern Boeing 777-300ER has much more efficient GE90-110 engines.

Correct for the a340 300...the 500 and 600's have RR engine's